BOOKMAKERS Tom and Bill Waterhouse scored a victory over Racing NSW yesterday when the NSW Supreme Court ruled they did not have to pay an additional fee for turnover on races for which they did not publish fields. The Waterhouses were fighting the race fields legislation fee, which involves an extra 1.5 per cent of turnover on NSW races.

It was argued by Tom Hughes, QC, that because the Waterhouses have a stand on the interstate rails, bets taken on NSW races are almost always taken over the phone and fields are not published.

NSW Supreme Court Justice George Palmer declared that the way in which the Waterhouses operated their business would not require the pair to have any approval for publication of NSW race fields.

Tom Waterhouse, who has been fielding in Melbourne in recent weeks, said he was "pleased with the judgment", although he added he was "happy to pay tax".

"But the extra fees would have changed my business," said Waterhouse, who turns over up to $5 million a week. "We'll continue giving a large contribution to the race clubs through our turnover tax at the races."

Waterhouse said he expected to start operating again in an "on-course" capacity at Sydney tracks but would first have to discuss that with "grandpa Bill" while he is based in Melbourne over the spring carnival.

"It's hard not to be in Melbourne, especially given we can bet on the internet and offer tote odds and at this time of year it is good to have a presence there," he said.

The NSW Government introduced race fields legislation in July with Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'Landys yesterday sating that it "in essence requires wagering operators to pay a fee to the NSW racing industry for the use of its intellectual property and compels them to provide betting information to ensure the integrity of racing".

"Unfortunately the Supreme Court has found that there is a technical deficiency in the legislation in relation to the way that Tom and Bill Waterhouse Pty Limited conducts its betting operations," V'Landys said in a statement. "Accordingly the [Supreme] Court has made a declaration that the manner in which those operations are currently conducted does not require an approval under the Act.